Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 3

In the skit, the non-resistant argues that “hypothetical questions will get you hypothetical answers” and that the questioner is “painting me in a corner”; how do you discern when a “what if” scenario is a sincere moral concern versus a rhetorical trap meant to make Jesus’ teaching seem impossible?

Another way to ask: How can you tell when a “what if” question is an honest moral worry versus a trap meant to make Jesus’ teaching look impossible?

Direct Answer The transcript suggests you discern this by noticing whether the question allows real Christian responses or whether it keeps tightening the scenario until the only “acceptable” outcome is proving non-resistance “doesn’t work.” A sincere concern seeks truth; a trap forces only two options and keeps adding impossible details.

Support from Transcript:

In the skit the questioner repeatedly adjusts the setup (gun/no good shot; horn doesn’t work; landslide/cliff; extra passenger) to control the outcome.
The non-resistant states two principles: “nobody… knows what they'll do in a moment of crisis” and “hypothetical questions will get you hypothetical answers.”
He identifies the trap motive: “paint me in a corner to where no matter what I do or say somebody gets killed off… then you'll just say pacifism is a good idea, but it doesn't really work.”
Dean says critics often try to show Scripture “can't be saying” what it plainly says—so the argument shifts from the text to scenario manipulation.
Yoder’s critique supports this: the questioner wants only “yes or no” and excludes other faithful actions like fleeing, prayer, or self-sacrifice.

Discussion Follow-ups When someone asks you a scenario, do they invite prayerful, Scripture-shaped imagination—or only demand a “gotcha” answer? What would it look like to calmly reframe the question like Yoder recommends?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 3 of 10